Thanks Mani and Peter for your feedback. There is consensus between us that the Weiss is several dB louder and that it has a completely different sound than the RME family. "Different" in the meaning of brighter, more edge, etc.

Yesterday evening I had another hour of critical listening. First I reduced 1dB on my electronic crossover at 800Hz (I have a ribbon tweeter covering 800-40kHz). This improved the subjective tonal balance, making the system quite neutral on most records.*

Still I could enjoy a sharper definition and "faster" sound. I got more realism from guitars and brass. I would not say it sounded TOO edgy or "metalic". Also I hear more recorded details, with a better sense of acoustics. The stage gets bigger, simply put. There is a see-through quality missing from the RME.

But there is a catch. I miss the relaxement and ease of the RME. With Weiss it sounds like the musicians drank too much Red Bull in the studio.

Open question to everybody: Any suggestions how to change my XX settings to add more "relaxement" and ease? [Similar to what we experienced here on the forum when reducing Q1 from 14 down to 4 and below]. Today I use (see signature) Engine 4, Adaptive Mode, Latency 1024, Q1=1 Q2-5=0.

--------------

The Weiss is on loan. I am not buying it. But this is an interesting and educating territory, well worth exploring. Hopefully the I2S interface from PHASURE will combine the 2 traits: The RME ease combined with the WEISS speed.



*FYI: There is no fasit which XO settings are correct. I have a 3-way system, where bass and treble can be adjusted in relation to the (fixed) midrange. The principe of tuning is rather simple: As much bass as possible, without getting boomy or without getting too chesty male vocal. Same principe with the treble: Maximum level without sound edgy on "most" records. There is no setting which is perfect for all records. I tune it to suit a large range of neutral quality recordings. Sometimes I wish I had 0,5dB steps instead of 1dB steps.

In the left corner my old trusty FF400 From Germany. In the right corner a Swiss newcomer on loan for a short periode. 

The Weiss is about 50% more expensive and has less features.
I use my FF400 for one reason only: It receives a firewire signal from my PC, and it generates the RCA spdif signal for my Buffalo II DAC.

Listening tests a couple of years ago proved that the FF400 sounded better than USB, with slightly better transparency and microdynamics. (This was before asyncron USB became available).

In fact, I have been very happy with my sound lately, except for a slight "softness" of transients which I have adressed to my interconnects with the telling name "SILK".

Connecting the WEISS box yesterday evening was a shock. It sounded much more dynamic and "sharp" compared with RME FF400. More transparent all over and more tight in the very low bass. Curiously it sounded much louder too. (I didn't measure, but had to step down the volume several dBs - how can it be?) I only had time for a few familiar songs, so I must of course do a longer more systematic listening session.

With the Weiss, trumpets really got their metalic "blast" (blat?) which I have been missing and (wrongly) attributed to my interconnect cables. I havn't been so excited for a long time. The cost of upgrading 5 sets of interconnets has really mared me.

Perhaps the sound is slightly too much "in your face" now, but that is something I certainly can tweak and solve. Eventually I step down the tweaters a dB on my electronic X-overs. Also there are adjustments in XX on hand.

It seems to me that the RME FF400 (and FF800) sucks in a highend setting. Probably their synthetic clock is not up to the best standards. When I come to think about, Peter also ditched his FF800 some time ago, saying that I2S was a totally different league. So, Firewire is not Firewire, there are big differences. Firewire is probably the better digital sound protocole, compared with USB and SPDIF. However the very best protocole is NO protocole. Which means running native I2S straight from the PC to the heart of the DAC chip, which is what the PHASURE DAC is doing, as far as I have understood.

The Weiss is really a killer component. On top of it, there is a remote digital volume controle.

However, it's high price puts it too close to a COMPLETE Phasure DAC setup from XX, so I'll wait for the complete Dutch solution.

----------

Morale of the day: There is much more sound quality to gain from tweaking the PC-DAC interface. Probably most of us have no idea how far digital sound quality can be stretched when EVERYTHING is done "perfectly" in the PC-DAC route.

PS PS: Hold on to your trusty inexpensive interconnects, they might be better than you think...

"I Can't Stand The Rain"

I can`t stand the rain
Against my window
Bringing back sweet memories
I can`t stand the rain
Against my window
Because here`s not here with me

Hey window pane
Do you remember
How sweet it used to be
When we were together
Everything was so grand
Now that we`ve parted
There`s one sound that I just can`t stand

Paul Miller, the editor of Hi-Fi Choice and an expert* in digital audio, resently wrote an article about this matter. He confirmed that FLAC and WAV will sound different because they demand difference prosesses from the PC. Basically, he confirmed what XXHighEnd is adressing and what XX users have experienced for a long time, that "bit-perfect" is a myth. Jitter will allways be an issue, creating small/big differences in SQ.

*Miller has his own research lab. He was among the first to study deep into jitter matters. In the process he developed his own software measurement/procedure which he has licensed to many a Hi-Fi manufactuerer and magazines like Stereophile.

I want larger buttons! Some of them are sooo tiny, I need a microscope.
Also, the long "help text" should stay a little longer on the screen. I don't get to read (and understand) it all before it disapears.

(You probably think I am a very old man with poor sight and a slow brain).

I didn't use the ArcP eigther, only straight 16/44. (Actually ArchP doesnt work on the XX version I have been using the last month. I havnt updated to the current version, because I have only played hi-rez files lately - so no need/hurry). I have some time tomorrow to do an software update and re-listen to the 16/44 with 4xArc!

Yes, I agree on your points. And also there is more texture to the instruments and it sounds more resolved. The 16/44 track sounds canned ("CD") in comparison, more dry and boring to listen to. (This is my impression after a quick A-B today).

Afterwards, I had to try my CD rip. It sounds cleaner, but I miss the extra low end kick which the vinyl has. The CD bass is tighter (and probably more faithful to the mastertape) but never the less I prefer the vinyl bass on this track. (Which often is the case with recordings from 50s and 60s).

It was a nice vinyl rip, although hearing the same LP at "leif" (he is a forum member, too) is even more impressive, through his $$$ vinyl rig.

Thanks!

I allways enjoy listening to vinyl. I have heard this track several times on my friend Leif's super turntable and the big stomp in the kickdrum is hard to get from the CD. It is probably certainly a vinyl artifact (resonances etc), but never the less the drumkit SOUNDS "better" than I have heard from my CD.

I will revert later on!

Dear Manisandher,

All 10 was gone before I got a chance to download it. 
Can you pls make it available one more time? I would LOVE to hear a quality rip of the Take Five LP in 24/176.

Which turntable/playback did you use?

Best regards

Some general reflections:
There are quite big sound differences to be had from various cables. But "different" doesnt allways mean better or worse, just "different".
I use a quite good (neutral) inexpensive signal cable called SILK, sourced from Sweden as ready made or DIY. It is one of the best sellers in Scandinavia, a good allrounder. It is available in 2 versions. Exactly the same geometry and materials, but with different gauge.
I went for the thicker one, giving more body and fuller sound. Choosing the thinner one would give more "speed" and focus on the overtones.
Actually, now I am longing for slightly more "action" and transient speed, and I have been tempted to check out some other cables. But I'll wait till I get the NOS DAC, which Peter says excel exactly in those areas. (I  have a theory that my Buffallo II is *slightly* on the soft side of real world microdynamic response). 

Cable differences are well worth testing out, but don't ever spend big bucks on it, because the same money spend on active components provides better value/money.

Happy cable hunting!

10 years ago I had some Norwegian loudspeakers (Forsman Ultima) with a SEAS soft dome tweeter. Changing interconnects to Nordost Quatrofil made a huge improvement. The sound became more "fast" and "alive". Several friends agreed, even those who were/are sceptical about cables in general. I lived happy with the Quatrofil for a year. Later I changed loudspeakers, to Magnepan 3.6. Then I found the treble to be somewhat "hyped". It turned out that the Quatrofil didnt suit the ribbon tweeters of Magnepan. Going back to some "basic no-nonsense" copper interconnects gave a more natural and better integrated treble.

(Just my 2C worth in the writing of the never ending saga of system matching.)

My guess: The "AP" process is triggered by square waves, which aren't present in your test signal. 

This thread has become a DICK DAC teaser...   

SQ of Adaptive Mode vs. Special Mode is very much depending on your setting of soundcards latency. With 09-z1 and 09-z2, Special Mode sounds best with lowest possible latency. With Adaptive Mode latency should be increased to something like 1024.

This is the general consensus here, as far as I have understood. (Or, you might say that with the myriad of parameters, setups and user preferences of XX and its users, the only consensus is that there is no consensus). 

Would you like to share the recipe with us?